The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technology company[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content. No indication that technology companies are different than other companies. Articles with more precise and meaningful definitions like Startup company, Internet service provider. or Electronics industry are more useful. Daask (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Technology industry and expand along those lines. bd2412 T 18:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Technology company" or "tech company" are reasonable search terms and incredibly common company descriptors. A cursory look at the article's incoming links shows this. If I google "tech company", the first result is this Wikipedia article and an excerpt from this article is included for the first "people also ask" question (ref). This article could perhaps be merged into a larger article, though nobody has yet articulated why that would be a good or reasonable thing to do.
Daask, I'm curious whether you've made any attempt to research this topic or expand the article to meet your standards. I personally don't think having a short article is necessarily bad, but I also think expanding this article to cover topics such the ambiguous definition of tech company (ref) or tech company culture, sometimes referred to as Silicon Valley culture (ref, ref, ref), and how it relates to start-up culture and work culture generally, would be pretty easy to do.
Taking a small step back, since we have articles such as Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, I think having an article about tech companies is as reasonable as having an article about the New York metropolitan area. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: Guzzetta's article is a good example for discussion. It indicates that "tech company" is a current cultural concept. I could imagine there being an article on that, but there's heavy overlap with Startup company, and this cultural concept more closely matches that article than the examples here (Baidu, Samsung Electronics, Apple, Google, IBM, Lenovo, Huawei, Microsoft, and Oracle). Incidentally, this list is arbitrary and uncited.

The Guzzetta article cites widely varying definitions, with some using it for companies that sell technology, and others for companies that use technology for a competitive advantage. Those definitions have minimal overlap, and should probably not be discussed in the same article per WP:NOTADICT. In that case, we are encouraging the use of an ambiguous term by continuing to keep this article.

A short article isn't bad if it provides information, but this doesn't have any to offer. The abundance of incoming links indicates to me only that the cultural construct of "tech company" has some positive connotations that makes companies want to frame themselves in this way; it does not indicate to me that this is a meaningful term for analysis. Daask (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're encouraging an ambiguous term by documenting it. If we are using this term in our own articles—such as Apple Inc. where we write "[...] American multinational technology company headquartered [...]"—that's a pretty clear indication to me that it's at least a reasonable search term and redirect. That said, I don't think redirecting to an article such as start-up company makes sense since many technology companies are not start-up companies.

While Wikipedia is not a traditional dictionary, the English edition commonly has articles about words or phrases (e.g., 86 (term) or Read my lips: no new taxes).

And the list of technology companies mentioned is arbitrary in the sense that any list of examples will be arbitrary. But it's exactly that: a list of example technology companies. If you wanted, we could say "these companies appear on the Fortune 500 list of technology companies" or similar (ref). Again, that seems like a case for editing, not deleting.

Whether we agree that these companies should be called technology companies or whether we see ambiguity in what it means to be a technology company isn't really relevant to documenting the term/concept here, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are entire books on the subject of technology companies. James500 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with the above. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily satisfies notability. AG47 ^Talk 20:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.